Talk:Shatnerverse
I know that several articles on this wiki include the Shatnerverse as its own "continuity." While I am the first to agree that a lot of Shatner's stuff has the surrealism that you find frequently in fanfic, I'd be curious to know what glaring continuity errors exist that require the complete denouncement of these novels. -- Data Noh 13:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :Well, Kirk being alive post-Veridian III is a biggie. Besides which, it's the editors at Pocket who have pretty explicitly stated that the "Shatnerverse" stands alone as its own continuity. --Seventy 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC) ::... when compared to other non-canon works. I agree that we shouldn't be spending time segregating the Shatnerverse or "denouncing" parts of it that don't conflict with other canon or licensed sources. Kirk being alive, Shelby outranking Picard, and some details about the Borg and the Mirror Universe stand out as different, but other than that, a lot of it fits perfectly well with what we know -- those facts that agree or at least coincide with each other needn't be annoted with any type of continuity separation. -- Captain MKB 16:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC) I don't even know that some of the discrepancies above are really errors in continuity. Kirk wouldn't be the first Starfleet officer to be brought back from death, his "resurrection" is explained, and I would hazard a guess that there aren't a lot of works that say, "Kirk is still dead." Obviously, the whole thing is somewhat implausible, but that's just a byproduct of analyzing a work of science fiction. When does Shelby outrank Picard? I'm reading through The Return, and they keep referring to her as "commander." Also, I'm not sure in what context the editors at Pocket have spoken against about the independence of the Shatnerverse continuity; the recently-published Voyages of Imagination has information about all the books, and places them into a contextual timeline, without once suggesting they occur in a separate continuity. This article itself says the series editor dislikes the term "Shatnerverse." -- Data Noh 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :I believe the editorial position is simply not to acknowledge them in other trek books, they might well be happening, the other guys just don’t know/talk about it (in the bits of there lives we see at least). I don't think the shatnerverse should be treated any differently than any other alternate continuity, note conflicts when they occur just straight include it when they don’t. --8of5 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Right on. -- Data Noh 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :Oh, for God's sake. Why characterize it as speaking "against the Shatnerverse continuity"? Saying it's different or separate or distinct unto itself is not to be "against" it. --Seventy 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Didn't mean to offend anyone with my choice of words; I just meant that I could find no evidence supporting that it was ever intended to be a separate continuity. -- Data Noh 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :its nothing to cry about, we're trying to discuss the widespread "earmarking" of Shatnerverse info with disclaimers where they are probably needed in a smaller number of cases than actually exist currently. Certainly, I'd like to see some backup of the "editorial position" or the "pretty explicitly" stated facts -- I could log onto Memory Beta and say that someone "pretty explicitly" stated something all day long and that wouldn't make it true. Has there been an acknowledgements section where Pocket editors have discussed this continuity? a press release? something you could cite? certainly we see "behind the scenes" commentaries like this mentioned in many background sections, but not a lot of sources connected to them. -- Captain MKB 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) ::It gets brought up in the TrekBBS Lit section every now and then, unfortunatly threads there disappear after a few weeks and the last time I can remember Margaret Clark (the editor of these books) making any comment was some time ago. If/when she does again I shall try and remember to get a quote. --8of5 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) ::: there is nothing good or bad about these books existing in their own alternate reality. The Mirror Universe is an alternate reality, and its popularity does not suffer. As to the official-ness of the Shatnerverse being an alternate reality from the main-line Pocket books (which are themselves an alternate reality from on-screen Star Trek), the Shatner novels have disclaimers to that effect. Its not good or bad it just is. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Well it's very nice for you to speculate but that isn't the editorial position, and information you removed from the page was correct, they are simply not acknowledged in other novels but could be happening in the same universe. If you and others wish to think of them as an alternate universe to keep it simple that’s very nice but it's not the official position. The recent disclaimer was mostly to make sure it was noted that the book might contradict some things in the new prequel movie and does not apply to every shatnerverse book. --8of5 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) This article Now, the above discussion petered out in 2007, but I have to say, there isn't a lot of weight to maintaining this as its own article on Memory Beta. The name is admittedly a fan nickname that isn't supported by the editorial staff. There aren't any other articles or continuities that are similarly segregated like this one is, based on fan impressions and nicknames. We don't have an articles for the "Diane Duaneverse" or the "Diane Careyverse". Why is this here? -- Captain MKB 04:45, August 19, 2010 (UTC) :Merge with William Shatner? --8of5 15:13, August 30, 2010 (UTC) I'd say that is reasonable. -- Captain MKB 23:04, August 30, 2010 (UTC) :Merge complete -- Captain MKB 21:05, January 10, 2011 (UTC)